This second string will discuss what's happening with CO2 taxes and trading. More focus will be on the rest of the world because the U.S. is not there just yet. The current administration seems to want to go there, however, so we need to keep an eye on it. Although this is directly related to the global-warming thread, I thought it might be better not to mix the two together.

Forewarned is forearmed.

With many of us being in the U.S., we don't always know what's happening in other countries, or we think it won't happen here. Last year, Great Britain's Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) announced a proposal for tightening the Climate Change Agreement (CCA) targets by 7.3% for the surface engineering sector and 10.1% for the heat-treatment sector.

The Contract Heat Treatment Association (CHTA) explained to their members that "this means that the heat-treatment sector is expected to make (energy/emissions) savings of around 17% from mid-2008 until 2010 - an utter nonsense and completely unrealistic for the vast number of companies therein.

Are we going to suffer the same types of government-imposed restrictions to doing business? If they are in Europe, and our new president is the darling of Europe, I suggest these types of business constraints are right around the corner. Stay informed!

One of the things that might keep the CO2 tax man at bay is the current state of the economy. No one can argue it would be foolish to do something like this at this time. Given that Obama's climate czar is a socialist, however, one never knows.

You may have seen this daily news item, but if not, here's some news about where our domestic industry is WITHOUT Kyoto and carbon taxes:

"The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) reports that the U.S. steel industry has reduced its energy intensity per ton of steel shipped by approximately 33% since 1990, signifying an industry milestone in energy efficiency. The achievement represents a further improvement since AISI announced a 29% reduction in 2006. The industry’s aggregate carbon dioxide emissions per ton of steel shipped have also been reduced. The American steel industry has already surpassed the Kyoto Protocol target, which calls for an average 7% (U.S.) reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions between 1990-2012.

On average, 1.14 tons of carbon dioxide was emitted in 2007 for every ton of steel produced in the U.S. The low CO2 intensity of American-manufactured steel coupled with its infinite recyclability translates to low environmental impacts across the entire life cycle for products made from steel."

In an editorial in stahl und eisen (a German steelmaking journal), Philippe Varin, CEO Corus and chairman of the World Steel Association Climate Change Policy Group, discussed CO2 data-collection efforts. Perhaps because of his position, Varin talks as if global warming, as a result of manmade CO2, is a fact.

My argument to this approach - to say nothing of the fact that it is not true (has anyone experienced warmer winters the last few years?) - is that there is no fallback/negotiation position. Once you "drink the Kool Aid," you are poisoned, and there is no going back.

As we get closer to this reality in the U.S., understand the facts and consider the consequences before you seek to use green as a marketing tool. If you don't, you may be adding nails to your corporate coffin!

CO2 emissions are a hot topic in stahl und eisen. Their editor, Gerd Krause, discussed the impact of a planned revision to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme for the period starting after 2012. This new proposal would require the steel companies to participate in global CO2 auctions and spend a lot of money obtaining emissions rights. They would also pay a much higher price for electricity.

I won't go into more detail. The impact on the steel industry and other CO2-intensive industries is obvious. Is this what we want for the U.S.? If you think so, you might want to check out the other thread on global warming.

The linked article goes where I suggested this logic would take us. In my July 2007 editorial (check it out in the Archives), I infer that taxing the products of human respiration have obvious consequences. See what this guy thinks about having children:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5627634.ece

Essar Steel in Canada is feeling the effects of environmental legislation there. I have copied some excerpts of the story here, but a link is given at the end. The highlight (italic) is mine, and it begs the question of who determines what is “protective of the environment … to prevent adverse impacts.” Talk about weasel words! Notice that the bureaucrats don’t even know what a heat treat furnace is, but they will be telling them how it should be run!?! Amazing – be afraid!

Essar is seeking an "amendment to an existing Certificate of Approval (Air) to operate No. 3 Plate Heat Treat Furnace. The works will emit products of combustion from natural gas into the atmosphere such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides."

Requests were e-mailed for information regarding this proposal; what a heat treat furnace is, what type and volume of pollution it would create, and what, if any, pollution controls would be put in place.

"My understanding is that the [heat treat] furnace is used to heat treat various types of metal to customer specification. You may wish to contact the company for further information. The amount of emissions from the furnace will depend on the level of operation.

Our review will look at determining if the company's proposal will meet the Ministry's strict air standards ... The Ministry has in place stringent standards that are based on levels that are safe and protective of the environment and human health and to prevent adverse impacts. The company is required to meet these emission standards and the ministry will review the company's proposal to ensure that any approval protects public health and the environment."

Here’s a link for the full story:

http://www.saultthisweek.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1438289

Well, you can't say I didn't warn you. It appears that the Obama administration plans to kick CO2 regulation into high gear using the EPA. Here's the latest from the NY Times (dated today).

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/19/healthscience/19epa.php

For reasons mentioned in previous messages in this thread and for many of the reasons previously discussed in editorials, look for this legislation to have a significant impact on life as you know it in the high-temperature thermal-processing field. And the shame of it is that it is based on junk science.

An article on Monday in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) adds some information about what this may mean. Administration officials have said they would limit regulation to facilities over a certain size, but legal experts say designating CO2 as a public danger could open up any emitters to legal challenge. (I wonder what that means for mankind who emits CO2 with every breath!?)

A U.S. Chamber of Commerce vice president says that once CO2 is regulated, they can no longer contain the Clean Air Act … and it would completely shut the country down. The EPA has indicated that action may be taken on April 2, the anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling.

Separately, the administration is seeking to establish a national policy for auto emissions. As we have mentioned before, the Obama administration is also pressing Congress to cut greenhouse gases to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama has threatened to use regulatory authority if legislators don’t act fast enough.

In our previous discussions, we have mentioned how crippling this type of cut would be to the economy (and that was when the economy was in good shape). The WSJ indicates that calculations suggest that this level of restrictions “would be equivalent to taking several hundered conventional coal-fired power plants out of service, possibly more than all 600-plus coal stations currently in the U.S.” Dangerous? Any thoughts?

In several editorials over the past year (4/08 & 2/09), I have been cautioning everyone that carbon taxes were coming and that some of the aluminum companies and others seemed to be lining up with the GW “industry” for reasons that are probably more about “marketing” than anything else. My caution was basically akin to “dancing with the devil causes burns.”

Well, in an opinion piece in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, it appears that some of these companies are getting burned. The article is called “The Climate Change Lobby Has Regrets,” and it is called “Potomac Watch” written by Kimberly Strassel. Strassel describes the U.S. Climate Action Partnership made up of about 30 companies who decided they “were going to dance with the U.S. government to the tune of global-warming legislation. The group demanded a ‘cap-and-trade’ system, figuring they’d craft the rules …”

Really!?! What they have found is that “the Obama budget … has opened eyes to the fact that this is about a social welfare-transfer system, not about climate.” Utility companies now realize this is a tax, and they are to become the tax collector via higher electric bills.

Strassel summarizes her column this way, “Business leaders might do better to use this as an opportunity to kill the beast. They might get some credit for protecting their customers from what they are now, finally, admitting is a giant tax – in the middle of a recession.”

I wonder where the protesters of the coal-fired plant (see 3/2 from the GW thread) and our NASA extremist think we will get the power needed to drive the engine of our economy. A February AP story from Sweden is a bit of irony for the Greens who think we can get all of our power from “green” sources. Here’s a link to paste in your browser:

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43085

Basically, Sweden has just ended a 30-year ban on building new nuclear reactors. Like the U.S., they felt that “renewable (green)” energy was the answer. As we have said before, however, they are finding that they can’t develop enough hydro, wind and solar power to meet the country’s growing energy demands.

Sweden’s goals are for 50% renewable power by 2020 and a 40% reduction in GH gases over 1990 levels by 2020. They plan to do this by expanding wind power and increasing taxes on fossil fuels. If Sweden thinks a laudable goal is a 40% reduction over 30 years, and they are already at a 40% utilization level of renewable power, I wonder how Obama thinks the U.S. will double this to reduce GH gases by 80% over the 60 years from 1990-2050?

We may have mentioned this already, but probably the issue that needs to be dealt with most (re. to cap-and-trade systems) is the global nature of our businesses.

An article in stahl und eisen, a German steel-industry publication, written by the president and CEO of JFE Steel Corporation in Japan, discussed the challenges before the steel industry. He addressed the basic idea of the Kyoto Protocol and “bemoaned” the fact that “only a handful of the top 17 steel producers are affected by emissions-reduction targets.” His conclusion is that “if this situation continues, crude steel production will shift to developing regions, and the result might be increasing CO2 emissions on a global level.”

Our friend from Japan indicates that the Japanese steel industry has achieved an energy reduction of 20% since the early ‘70s, and seemed to be saying that others needed to get with the program. Since the U.S. steel industry has achieved a 30% reduction since the early ‘90s, I’d say we are certainly on board.

Along these lines, a March 5 Reuters interview indicates that the U.S. has the same concerns re. to China. Here’s a link to paste in your browser:

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN05320947

President Barack Obama has proposed a cap-and-trade system to curb emissions in the United States. Tom Gibson, president of the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) feels such a system would be damaging because the steel industry is an energy-intensive industry and is exposed to international competition. The U.S. industry's preferred solution would be for the United States, China and other countries to negotiate a steel sectoral agreement to curb emissions.

Last Friday (3/20), the EPA sent the White House a proposed finding that CO2 is a danger to public health. In effect, this allows the government to treat CO2 – a product of human respiration – as a pollutant. On Monday, the White House indicated that Mr. Obama’s “strong preference” is for Congress to pass energy security legislation that includes a cap on greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions.

Earlier this month, the EPA proposed a national system for reporting CO2 and other GHG emissions by major emitters. The EPA said that ~13,000 facilities, accounting for 85-90% of U.S. GHG, would be covered under the proposal. Are you included?

Some of these early proposals (and the typical political spinning) lead people to believe they will not personally be affected. While we could discuss that logic for the rest of the day, you should be aware that since January, politicians have introduced more than 20 bills mentioning climate change. These include proposals that would prohibit taxes on the emissions of domestic animals!

It’s important to note that the number of climate lobbyists has tripled in the past five years to at least 2,340. One group is “pressing lawmakers to provide incentives that will reduce the number of miles the average American drives."

Our freedoms and way of life are (or will soon be) under attack by these lobbyists and the EPA. Don’t say you haven’t been warned!

The following news of the week continues to address concerns about cap-and-trade systems. Specifically, steelmakers are speaking out. Our next post will discuss the status of legislation initiated by Democrat Henry Waxman and the Republican response.

Steelmakers and other energy-intensive industries fear competitive disadvantage, which agrees with what we have been discussing about Europe since the adoption of the EU emissions trading scheme (EU ETS). U.S. steelmakers have warned that a new climate bill currently being prepared by President Barack Obama's administration risks increasing their production costs and could result in loss of their market share to emerging economies such as China, which has not committed to similar emissions targets.

The Europeans agree that the concerns of the American steel industry are well founded. The U.S. produces around 100 million metric tons of steel. Europe produces 200 and China 500. While Europe produces 1.4 metric tons of CO2 per tonne of steel, the figure is around 3-4 in China.

Also, the media and steel-industry opponents are currently upset that the European steelmakers received over $1 billion worth of unneeded carbon permits last year under the EU ETS. The claim is that this is due to aggressive steel-industry lobbying. Steelmakers argue it was a consequence of lower production last year due to the economic downturn. EU steel production was down 5.3% in 2008, according to the World Steel Association.

Under the EU ETS, governments give heavy industry a quota of free carbon permits, each equivalent to one metric ton of CO2. The U.S. is mulling an emissions trading scheme of its own. Unlike the EU ETS, however, President Barack Obama’s plan would not allot any free carbon permits. He feels participants should have to pay for all permits from the beginning, eliminating any opportunity for windfall profits. Some industry groups and politicians have resisted that.

The debate in Washington over climate change recently advanced when California Democrat Henry Waxman introduced a bill to cut U.S. “greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions” without specifying how the costs would be applied to different sectors of the economy.

Mr. Obama wants to put a price on emissions of CO2 in part to spur development in the U.S. of new power-generation technology, more efficient cars and buildings that consume less energy. Obama has argued this serves two goals: curbing climate change and creating new "green" jobs. Mr. Obama has directed billions of dollars in new federal spending to renovate the electric grid in order to better carry power generated by windmills.

But the key to all of Mr. Obama's initiatives is raising the cost of burning fossil fuels, which provides the majority of the U.S. economy's electric and transportation energy. Implementing policy that may significantly increase our cost of electricity, natural gas, propane and gasoline seems foolish in light of the financial challenges being faced by many people. How is this “stimulus”?

The Waxman-Markey bill calls for cutting U.S. emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020, compared with the roughly 14% reduction that Mr. Obama has called for in that timeframe. It would also mandate tougher efficiency standards for buildings and appliances by 2025.

The bill would place a cap on “GHG emissions” and requires entities that emit more than 25,000 tons of CO2 annually to have tradable federal permits or allowances that allow them to “pollute.” The program sets a cap on available allowances and the number of permits will reduce each year.

The plan will primarily target electric utilities, oil companies and factories that together are responsible for 85% of U.S. GHG emissions.

Lobbyists for industries that depend heavily on cheap fossil-fuel power (such as cement, steel and coal-fired electric plants) say any U.S. regulation of GHG emissions should include a giveaway of some emissions allowances to give the companies time to work on new technology.

Similar to what was discussed (about Europe) in the last BB entry, Mr. Obama's aides say that giving away allowances would lead to windfall profits for some companies. His administration has called for auctioning off 100% of the emission allowances and using the bulk of the revenue - roughly $645 billion between 2012 (when the system kicks in) and 2019 - to fund tax credits for the middle class.

Obama has since indicated that 100% auctioning is not a requirement.

The U.S. Senate approved a Republican proposal aimed at slowing passage of Obama’s plan to cut greenhouse gases by creating a cap-and-trade system.
The chamber adopted, 67-31, a budget amendment that bars Democrats from using a parliamentary tactic known as reconciliation to pass a climate-change bill this year. That procedure would have allowed approval with a majority of the 100-seat Senate instead of the 60 votes often needed to pass legislation. Democrats control the chamber with 58 votes.

Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, in describing the vote said, “Tonight an overwhelming majority of the U.S. Senate slammed the door on using the fast-track process to jam through a new national energy tax. This is good news for families, taxpayers and job creators.”

Some Senate Democrats have joined Republicans in expressing concern about how cap-and-trade would affect businesses in their states. In addition, eight Democrats in the chamber signed a letter last month opposing use of the reconciliation tactic in voting on the issue.

The letter indicated, “Legislation so far-reaching should be fully vetted and given appropriate time for debate. Using (the fast-track) procedure would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the administration’s stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation and openness.”

Republicans feel the need to protect the legislative process because Democrats have been taking every opportunity to squelch the “democratic” process. An example is the House’s budget plan, which would let Democrats use the fast-track procedure in the Senate to approve Obama’s plans to overhaul the nation’s health-care system and eliminate federal subsidies to student-loan providers.

Back on 3/26, we warned you that the EPA was making a move to declare CO2 a public health danger. This past Friday, the EPA made it official by declaring that CO2 and five other GH gases “endanger public health and welfare." This is setting the table to eat your lunch, I’m afraid. It also looks a bit like a set-up as the EPA threatens to regulate these gases, it leverages Congress to take action on the cap-and-trade legislation preferred by the Obama administration. It’s either regulation or legislation, at this point. Such a deal!

Some of the wording in the EPA statements included, "in both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem" and that CO2 and five other gases "that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act." They also concluded that the science pointing to GW being man made is "compelling and overwhelming." Their position is that tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change.

So, if Obama can’t get what he wants NOW, via the legislative process, he will go through the back door and threaten to regulate it. It’s possible that some type of cap-and-trade legislation could be considered by the House before their August recess.

What were the other five gases considered to be a public health danger, you ask? They are methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Stay tuned to see how your life will be affected – in a very negative way – when the government controls everything we do from driving our cars to cutting our lawns to heating our houses to our ability to make a living doing what we have always done. I’m convinced that some of these people would like us to return to the pre-industrial revolution “good old days.” There’s a term for that. It’s called “Luddite.”

Next time we’ll look at the impact this type of regulation/legislation might have on the auto industry.

The news that Chrysler is virtually doomed to bankruptcy is scary in light of the recent EPA actions. The Wall Street Journal reports that a senior administration official has indicated that the EPA “will likely confine its rule-making efforts on greenhouse gases this year to autos.” Needless to say, this will be a costly proposition for automakers. Last summer, the transportation department estimated its proposal to require automakers to achieve 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost $46.7 billion.

Cap-and-trade legislation is intended to apply to power plants, steel mills or other large emitters of CO2. Unfortunately, with the EPA invoking the Clean Air Act, smaller businesses could be affected. It covers “any building, structure, facility or installation” that emits at least 250 tons per year of any regulated “air pollutant.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce indicates that this threshold is low enough to include one million mid-size to large commercial-sector sources such as restaurants, hospitals, schools and office buildings. Is your business included in the one million?

NIMBY. It’s an appropriate descriptor these days. The green movement wants more windmills, but Ted Kennedy doesn’t want them in his back yard ... hence, NIMBY – not in my back yard.

Royal Dutch Shell is pushing to become the world leader in capture and storage of CO2. The Dutch people, however, are saying NIMBY. They say it is not NIMBY-ism, but express concerned about an explosion of the gas. I didn’t realize CO2 was explosive. The CO2 will be filling a depleted natural-gas field. Now that’s explosive! I’d think that if there wasn’t a problem with an explosion of the natural gas at that location, the CO2 should be just fine.

Any other thoughts? Is my thinking off base, or does it sound like NIMBY to you too?

The Wall Street Journal is reporting (5/4) that industries are pushing for free carbon credits under cap and trade. The WSJ indicates that a range of industries are making their case ahead of a vote on proposed climate legislation expected this week by the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment.

Electric utilities are pushing to secure up to 40% of the emissions permits for free. Oil refiners are lobbying for 30% free with both numbers being based on the contribution of each industry to U.S. CO2 emissions.

As we have mentioned before, the argument is that U.S. refineries will lose out to refineries in India and the Middle East that ship their product here and are not subject to carbon caps.

A new business may come from the regulation of GHG emissions. The capture of methane gas from coalmines may begin to be a profitable venture.

First, methane has value when sold into the natural-gas market. Second, mines that reduce escaping methane will obtain valuable carbon credits, which will be able to be sold. Several companies have begun working the plan. A pilot project is designed to remove 40,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent a year. At an expected $2-7/ton for U.S. carbon credits, the potential profit is significant when scaled up from the pilot.

Reuters ran a story about steelmakers fearing climate rules. Tom Gibson, president and chief executive of the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) stated, "Cap and trade? We have not seen one (proposal) we can support right now."

Ward Timken Jr, chairman of Timken Co, which makes specialty steel and industrial bearings, is a vocal opponent of the proposed legislation and has warned politicians to take their time to consider the implications. "The national policy of cap-and-trade has serious implications for the competitiveness of American manufacturing, and I urge Washington legislators to pause in the rush to approve cap-and-trade."

Be careful with figures. Figures lie and you know what liars do! The Pew Center on Global Climate Change said that energy-intensive manufacturers are likely to face only modest impact. AISI's Gibson blasted the Pew report as "flawed," saying it underestimates the competitiveness impact based on data accumulated from 1986 to 1994 – most of that period happening before the industry boomed on Chinese-led economic growth and building.

There was a great editorial in the WSJ on 5/15. I won’t try to review it, but like my upcoming June editorial, Mitch Daniels (Governor of Indiana) discusses the impact on regular people of the administration’s “imperialistic” approach to cap and trade. Here’s a link for your browser:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124234844782222081.html

I encourage you to read it. If nothing else, it lets you know that I am not out on a limb with my opinion!

We didn’t hear much about this, but the WSJ reported that the Democrats were prepared to hire a speed reader to read the entire 946-page climate bill in addition to its amendments. Obviously, some folks in Congress think it’s a joke for people to actually know what they are voting on.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124278191732237461.html

I don’t believe this has happened yet, but the reader is poised to go at the beck and call of the Democratic leadership.

Looks like the defections keep growing on the part of House Democrats regarding the climate bill. Pelosi has demanded that all of the committees have work on the bill completed by 6/19. The report is that skepticism toward the bill is growing, not shrinking. It will be interesting to see what’s in store.

Three Republican Congressmen from the Midwest recently (6/11) authored an editorial in the WSJ. Supporting the numbers discussed in my June editorial, these senators – Pence, Shimkus and Upton – are discussing the GOP alternative. They define the “centerpiece of their American Energy Act (AEA)” as a commitment to increase the production of our abundant domestic natural resources with a desire to not punish traditional energy producers and consumers. Here’s a link for your browser:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124467604217304035.html

One of the key pillars of this proposal is nuclear energy. The AEA establishes a national goal of licensing 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years. Since 31 applications are already in the pipelines, this goal seems very achievable. The AEA also allows for exploration in ANWR and other currently off-limits areas. Read about the other provisions in the WSJ article.

Sounds like the House Democrats are ready to bring the Waxman/Markey bill to a vote, possibly by the end of the week! Believe it or not, it is being painted as a job creator instead of the tax and economic bomb that it will be. These folks can’t be that stupid. They must know what’s in it for them – greater control.

Regardless of who you are, you can’t help but notice (if you are paying attention) that just about every decision made by the Obama administration (and our politically one-sided legislature) has been about a power grab. How many czars do we have now? I heard a czar for something like the “Great Lakes Issues” was just appointed. In case anyone is not aware or not thinking about it, the czars (a la Russia) are all about removing the constitutionally imposed influence and power from the legislature and putting it on one person. In that way, if the administration loses control of either house in a mid-term election, the czars (and hence the president) will maintain control. With each of these steps, the Constitution becomes increasingly irrelevant.

Pay attention, and (regardless of your political party) be very afraid of the way our country is going.

Here’s some information on the Waxman-Markey “cap & trade” bill that was scheduled to be voted on today:

http://dailyreckoning.com/waxman-markey-whacks-industry/

Here’s a quote they used from the WSJ: The bill was described as “one of the most ambitious efforts to re-engineer American social and economic behavior in decades, presenting risks and opportunities for a wide array of businesses from Silicon Valley to the coal fields of the Appalachians.”

I have touched on these issues in previous editorials, but let’s look at the math offered by this article as calculated by an engineer: “Utah’s carbon footprint today is about 66 million tons per year. Our population is 2.6 million. You divide those two numbers and the average Utahan today has a carbon footprint of about 25 tons per year. An 80% reduction in Utah’s carbon footprint by 2050 implies 66 million tons today to about 13 million tons per year by 2050. If Utah’s population continues to grow at 2% per year, by 2050, there will be about 6 million people living in our state. So 13 million tons divided by 6 million people equals 2.2 tons per person per year.

“Question: When was the last time Utah’s carbon footprint was as low as 2.2 tons per person? Answer: Not since Brigham Young and the Mormon pioneers first entered the Wasatch Valley and declared, ‘This is the place.’”

You can extend this math over the whole country – a growing mass of 300 million people. To meet the Waxman-Markey bill’s goals would mean we have to go back to a carbon footprint about as big as the Pilgrims’ at Plymouth Rock circa 1620.

The WSJ recently discussed the realities of the Waxman-Markey bill, which was approved by the Congress. It sounds like it’s another case of “liars figure, and figures lie.” A key thing to keep in mind is that to get support for the bill, Waxman was “forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats.” This is like buying a house you can’t afford but fooling yourself that you can by doing interest only at the beginning with a large balloon payment down the road.

Even though the bill didn’t see much debate, in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments, which were all defeated. They were: suspend the program if gas hits $5/gallon; suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%.

Supporters of a cap-and-trade system are trying to make the annual cost (to families) look as low as possible with the smoke and mirrors of the lying figures. If we have any doubt as to how much this will cost, we need only look to a country already doing it. Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family is paying nearly $1,300/year in green taxes for programs in effect only a few years.

Here’s where all of this type of legislation goes. A report from Australia indicates that police are being forced to become “carbon cops” to process a new range of carbon offenses. Unfortunately, they are being given no new resources. Apparently, “agents would be expected to enter premises and request paperwork to monitor firms' emissions reductions. They would act on the 30-strong Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority's orders.”

Another story out this weekend says that the Environment Agency in Great Britain is setting up a squad to police companies generating excessive CO2 emissions. Decked out in green jackets, the enforcers will be able to demand access to company property, view power meters, call up electricity and gas bills and examine carbon-trading records for an estimated 6,000 British businesses.

It’s amazing to me that all of this is happening, and no one has ever been able to show that increasing CO2 is causing any warming and/or that man is responsible. This situation is out of control, and the U.S. administration has jumped on the bandwagon.

Back on March 9, I mentioned that there were industries who decided to “dance with the devil” on cap and trade thinking they would get a place at the table. As it turns out, they are finding this is not the case. While I think the steel industry has been consistent in their rebuke of C&T, the aluminum industry has not. They think they will be given credit because they make a light metal. I previously cautioned that they would end up getting burned because aluminum smelting is a very energy-intensive process.

Well, the latest news is that U.S. energy-intensive industries - like aluminum, chemicals, paper and steel - want the U.S. Senate to give them a bigger share of the free pollution permits that would be needed to emit greenhouse gases under climate-change legislation.

Industries that consume a lot of energy received 13.5% of the permits in climate-change legislation cleared last month by the House of Representatives. The affected companies want it raised to 15% in the Senate's climate-change bill, as it was originally in the House measure.

The letter, faxed Wednesday night to all of the committee's members, was signed by four trade groups: The Aluminum Association, American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association and the American Iron and Steel Institute. The trade groups said their member companies need the extra free pollution permits to ease the transition to new long-term technologies currently not available that will reduce GHG emissions.

Germany is calling carbon tariffs “eco-imperialism.” With a cap-and-trade bill, carbon tariffs will be come the next big thing. Why? Because imposing a cap-and-trade tax on production in one country will cause manufacturing to move from that country toward a country with fewer or no manufacturing restrictions.

In fact, the U.S. House of Representatives has already passed legislation that contains carbon tariffs. It would allow the U.S. to impose duties on imports of carbon-intensive goods such as steel, cement, paper and glass from countries that have not taken steps to reduce their own emissions. Most say this violates the rules of the WTO.

In our global economy, tariffs are taboo, but Democratic lawmakers are calling for them to try to protect U.S. manufacturers from foreign competition if the cap-and-trade bill is enacted. This seems to be a direct party disagreement with President Obama’s assertion that this legislation would not hurt the economy. Read the WSJ column by pasting this link into your browser:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574336844278574578.html

The linked article (below) discusses the impact on food prices if the climate bill is enacted. Quite often when the government sticks their nose into something they create "unintended" consequences. So, not only will we be paying significantly higher utility bills, we will be paying more for food. I only wish my pay would be going up at the same rate as our costs are going to be going up if the administration and supporters have their way!

You will need to copy and paste this into your browser:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125012590566427831.html

Cap-and-trade’s creators are critics

Even the believers in man-caused GW don’t believe cap and trade is the way to go. Even the people who originally came up with the idea are opposed. Copy the link in your browser to read more.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125011380094927137.html

Concerns are myriad, but most revolve around the type of concerns expressed by others. A big one is that cap and trade is much more effective as a local control mechanism. If it is enacted one place and not another, production will move to the other place. Read the article to get the rest of the story.

I found a Q and A with Marc Morano, executive editor of climatedepot.com, in the Pgh. Tribune Review to be very interesting. Check it out here:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_638348.html

Morano is an expert in climate change, and he indicated that the UN is panicking because they fear losing the power that controlling carbon would give them. As I mentioned in an editorial long ago, we exhale CO2. Controlling it puts us on a slippery slope. Morano finished with this, “We inhale oxygen; we exhale CO2. If you can regulate and declare a toxic pollutant what we exhale from our mouth, you’ve achieved a level of control George Orwell didn’t even contemplate in his book ‘1984.’”

NAM has again offered a suggestion to prevent unreasonable and unnecessary action by the EPA. This link can be copied into your browser to read more about it:

http://mhmonline.com/news/nam-epa-clean-air-act-blunt-instrument-6133/

This WSJ Story discusses the release of the draft Senate Climate Bill. They say, “Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry outlined the measure, which would cut emissions from 2005 levels 20% by 2020 and more than 80% by 2050. Here’s the story to read for yourself:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125432784392453017.html

Concurrently, the WSJ reported the action by the EPA, which will “effectively require new, large industrial facilities and existing ones undergoing modification to use the most up-to-date technology to curb carbon-dioxide emissions.” Here’s that story:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125435259851954193.html

In our post of 4/20, we warned readers that this action was coming and why. It’s a move to force the hand of the legislature to act quickly and stifle appropriate debate. Seems pretty commin these days.

In George Will’s column in yesterday’s paper, he briefly addressed these limits imposed by the Senate bill as we did in our 6/26 post. Will says, “that the goal of cutting GHG by 80% in the next 40 years, “would require reducing GHG to the 1910 level. On a per-capita basis, it would mean emissions approximately equal to those in 1875.

We are about to have our way of life overrun by control freaks chasing after something that has little to no basis in reality. Pay attention, and get involved! Our businesses and our way of life depend on it.

Here’s some feedback from Australia’s steel industry in reaction to that country’s carbon-trading legislation, which goes back to their Senate in November.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/industry-warns-of-carbon-trading-backlash-20090821-etss.html

The AIST was also on record commenting on current legislation. Here's a link to this news on our website:

http://www.industrialheating.com/Articles/Industry_News/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000679942

I don’t always agree with everything that Pat Buchanan has to say, but I think his column from 10/17 was spot on regarding global warming and cap & trade. Check it out here:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_648409.html?source=rss&feed=5

Check back to the posts of 3/26 & 4/20 in this thread. We warned you of actions by the EPA to "legislate" if Congress was not moving fast enough. A USA Today story in September indicates that the EPA is planning to act, particularly if Congress does not. Here's the URL:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/environment/2009-09-14-jackson_N.htm

Here’s a report from the WSJ that is multifaceted. The most interesting part is the pro and con interview about whether countries can cut carbon emissions without hurting economic growth.

http://online.wsj.com/public/page/environment-092109.html

Here’s the first bit of good news I have heard about the administration’s position on cap and trade. Looks like it may be the sacrificial lamb to new rhetoric about deficit control.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29471.html

Here are a couple of interesting fact-filled letters that were written by readers of the Wall Street journal. Both deal with CO2 regulation:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574457511346605076.html

Very interesting!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

For a few reasons, we will not be adding many more posts to this bulletin board. One reason is that we are unsure if they are being read (because no one ever comments) and climate legislation appears to be dead.

One thing that you should watch for, however, is something we warned you about several times over the past year. Without legislative support, it appears Obama will "regulate" rather than legislate. Although the following story is older and some of the teeth have come out of this movement, keep an eye on the EPA.

Does it feel to anyone else like we have become a third-world nation? In history, when has it ever been OK for a president to threaten the legislative body with pre-emptive regulation if they don’t act in a way that would ultimately result in economically destruction? This is dictator-style politics, pure and simple!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/administration-warns-command-control-regulation-emissions/

This past week I read that legislators are trying to block EPA climate regulations under a "disapproval" resolution. Even if they can get this done, however, Obama's VETO pen remains poised!